Open Letter to Pastor Jeff Tell: Lexington ARPC Church Plant

 

I have been retired since October of last year.  Since my job required lots of travel, I was not a member of any local church in my area, namely Lexington, South Carolina.  In fact, the only church that was traditional and even remotedly resembled a truly Reformed Presbyterian church is First Presbyterian Church in Columbia.  The problem there is that the church is very large, and the other problem is that the ARPC allows for the ordination of women to the office of deacon.  FPC, being an Associate Reformed Presbyterian session or church, allows for the ordination of women, also.  That is the reason that I did not become a member there, despite the fact that the preaching generally sound and Reformed.  The current pastor is Dr. Neil Stewart.

The ARPC has a church planting program and a new church is being planted in Lexington and the pastor chosen to do the work is Jeff Tell.  Unfortunately, the church plant is being conducted along the lines of the pragmatic church growth movement, following the example of the Presbyterian Church in America or PCA.  The PCA is at best a mix of truly reformed churches and churches formed under the church growth model, which focuses on dumbing down doctrinal distinctives.  One of the largest PCA churches in my area is Lexington Presbyterian Church, which supported the Revoice heresy of accepting "celibate" homosexuals as members and as teaching elders.

There have been warning signs at the new ARPC church plant in Lexington.  I sent a couple of emails to the pastor to register my complaints.  He did answer me once or twice.  After that it became silence.  So my only option now is to publicly address the complaints.  I cannot and do not support any church that openly discourages new members from agreeing with the doctrinal standards, namely the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catehisms.

I wrote the following letter to Pastor Jeff Tell by way of email:

Dear Jeff,

I am not sure that I know exactly what to say about this church plant.  So, I will just give my opinion so far.

First, I was troubled by your suggestion that new members need no concern themselves with what the ministers are required to subscribe to in regards to the doctrinal standards of the denomination.  I think you said that they could just flip through the Westminster Standards.  The other red flag is that this edition has no biblical proof texts given to support the doctrinal positions.

The first chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith makes it clear that the most important doctrine of any presbyterian church is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  So your remark that the new members need not concern themselves with points iii through vii was disturbing.

The point that most bothers me is point vii.  I cannot and never will promise to obey any church or church official who contradicts what the Bible plainly and univocally says.  I say this because the ARPC has officially allowed local session to ordain women to the male only office of deacon as prescribed by 1 Timothy 3:12.  In fact, as I studied the history of the decision of the general synod of 1969, it came to my attention that the moderator of the 2005 synod was Rev. William B. Evans, a supporter of the doctrine of the ordination of women.  Evans recently retired from Erskine College and transferred his ordination to the liberal mainline denomination, the Presbyterian Church USA.

I have been following the denominational issues of several Presbyterian denominations for many years by reading the Aquila Report online.  So, I am well aware of the "moderates" and liberals within the ARPC.  One of Evans' complaints was the influence of Ligonier and Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, NC, according to his blog:  A Change in Ecclesiastical Affiliation.

The other deal breaker for me is that the church pamphlet keeps putting quotes from Tim Keller, a self-avowed promoter of the woke view of social justice, also known as social Marxism.  Keller is passed on, but his views on the doctrinal standards were liberal to say the least.  He promoted a version of the Revoice homosexual celibacy view in the Presbyterian Church in America.  He also promoted the theistic evolution view of Biologos.

In this week's pamphlet, the quote from Keller was completely wrong.  First, off, the covenant of grace began with the protoevangelium in Genesis 3:16.  Later God expanded on this covenant of grace with the covenant of Abram in Genesis 15.  So, when Keller makes the generalization that "ancient covenants were marked  by an oath-sign in which the curse of disobeying the covenant was made clear . . .," the statement is clearly casuistry and equivocation meant to misled novices.  The covenant of works was initiated in the garden of Eden and is still in effect until the consummation, except for those who are unconditionally elected in eternity, effectually called by monergistic regeneration, and given the gift of saving faith.

[The following was not included in the letter to Pastor Tell.  It is the quote from Tim Keller in the church pamphlet  that I found to be misleading:

"The Lord's Supper was a covenant-making ceremony, in which Jesus created a new people and entered into covenant with them as their Lord.  Ancient covenants were marked by an oath-sign in which the curse of disobeying the covenant was made clear, but Jesus shows us that this time, he takes on the curse for breaking the covenant himself.  He will take the cup of God's wrath so we can have the cup of fellowship and blessing."]

In fact, the doctrinal standards specifically state that even the elect are not under the law as covenant of works.  However, the moral law does tell them how they are to live as Christians:

WCF 19.6  Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man's doing good, and refraining from evil because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace. (WCF 19:6 WCS)

As you can see, the Confession actually says that believers are still under the moral law as a rule for living out the Christian life.  Unregenerate persons are still under the moral law as a covenant of works:

WCF 19.5  The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God, the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. (WCF 19:5 WCS)  See also: 19:1-2.

Finally, as far back as 1995 when I graduated from Asbury Seminary with the M. Div. I took a church growth class with George Hunter, III.  I am well aware of the church growth pragmatism approach to church planting.   In those days, I was still a classical Pentecostal.  I was appalled at the dumbing down of Wesleyan theological distinctives recommended by Hunter.  The end result of refusing to preach theological distinctives and the whole counsel of God in the inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed Scriptures is a church full of novices at best, and unconverted persons who have no understanding of the Bible whatsoever.

I became a Calvinist in 1992 or so precisely because of the Pentecostal emphasis on spiritual experiences and personal piety over against any intellectual understanding of the Bible or the Christian faith.  Donald McGavran's denomination has one creed:  No creed but the Bible.  The early Pentecostals after the 1906 Azusa Street Revival had no doctrinal confessions of faith until the Oneness Pentecostal controversy around 1914.

Moreover, over the past 6 or 7 years that I have resided in Lexington, SC, I have visited just about every church that has claimed to be "Reformed".  Most of them were either PCA or ARP, except for Saxe Gotha.  Lexington Presbyterian Church, last I visited there, was pushing the Revoice controversy.  The other PCA churches, though smaller, were also following the pragmatic church growth pattern that decidedly dumbed down doctrine.

It came down to attending First Presbyterian Church, Columbia because that church at least has traditional worship with conservative preaching and the right administration of the sacraments.  However, I could not in good conscience join FPC because the session ordains women to the church office of deacon.  Your church plant, otoh, does not follow the regulative principle of worship and instead replicates the charismatic and emotive style of worship meant to de-emphasize the Bible as the final authority.

Your church plant gave a glimmer of hope that there would be solid preaching by expository sermons, along with solid opportunities for Christian education by way of Sunday school classes with competent instructors.  I realize that it takes time to develop these programs.  However, it is not looking good.  

The other problem, as I see it, is that your new members class does not emphasize the doctrinal standards whatsoever.  Instead, you're following Tim Keller's re-interpretation of the doctrinal standards, the Navigators, etc.  The Navigators were Arminian in orientation as I recall.   In more conservative sessions of various Presbyterian denominations, children who were baptized as infants are required to go through the Shorter Catechism class prior to becoming communicant members who partake of the Lord's table.  There should be some basic understanding of the doctrinal standards required to join a local session, including the Larger Catechism.  Glossing over the catechism is not healthy, imo.

While fellowship is important, I do not think that church picnics and church fellowship is what makes for a healthy church.  Community and family can be found anywhere, including the local bar or another religion.  As you said in the sermon from the previous week, the temptation for church planters is to take shortcuts.  Well, the church growth movement itself is just a huge shortcut.  Healthy churches are based on solid biblical preaching, doctrinal preaching, and the right administration of the sacraments.  Without the preaching of the word the sacraments are meaningless.  

In short, anyone can nominally claim to be reformed or that their church is reformed.  However, the term reformed needs to have a definition.  Reformed In Name Only or RINO does not meet that requirement.

As it stands now, I will not be joining the church as a member.

For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. (Acts 20:27 KJV)

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim. 3:15-17 KJV)

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Charlie J. Ray, M. Div.

P.S.  I do a blog at www.reasonablechristian.blogspot.com.  

Addendum:  I was unaware that Jesus created a new people when He established the sacrament of the Lord's supper.  1 Corinthians 11:23-32.  The new church is also administering the Lord's supper weekly and in at least one church pamphlet referred to is as a "eucharist."  The term eucharist is code for real presence, consubstantiation, and transubstantiation.  The Calvinist and Zwinglian view reached a consensus rejecting the eucharistic view of the sacrament.  The Consensus of Tigurinus was written by John Calvin himself.

There are 7 vows that a person must make in order to become a member of the new Lexington Associate Presbyterian Church according to the handouts given in the new member class:

i.  Do you profess that you are a sinner in the sight of God; that you deserve His punishment; that you are unable to save yourself; and that you are without hope of salvation except for God's love and mercy?

ii. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of sinners; and do you receive and trust in Him alone for your salvation?

iii. Do you accept the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, as the written Word of God; and that it is the only perfect rule of faith and how to live?

iv.  Do you promise to trust in the guidance and strength of the Holy Spirit so that you can live all of life as a Christian, following the example set by Jesus Christ?

v.  Do you promise to exercise faithful stewardship of God's resources entrusted to you for the furtherance of God's Kingdom and purposes?

vi.  Do you accept that the doctrines and principles of the Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church are founded upon the Scriptures?

vii.  In loving obedience, do you submit yourself to the government and discipline of this church, promising to seek the peace, purity, and prosperity of this congregation as long as you are a member of it? 

The doctrines of the Westminster Confession of Faith are not "founded upon the Scriptures.  The doctrines of Bible are summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Westminster Confession of Faith is "deduced" from the Bible "by good and necessary consequence" or inference.  See WCF 1:6.

 

 

 

 

 

Repost: The Consensus of Tigurinus

 [This post was originally posted in 2009.  I am reposting it here for information purposes.]

The following confession of faith is an agreement made by the churches of the Swiss Reformation in Zurich, representing the Zwinglians, and Geneva, representing the Calvinists. James I. Packer has said that Cranmer and the other English Reformers of this period were not unaware of this agreement and probably had it in mind when formulating their own theology of the sacrament. Packer says,

 

Dix in reply (Cranmer Dixit et non timuit: Church Quarterly Review, April 1948, pp. 145ff.; July 1948, pp. 44ff., and published separately) tried to drive a wedge between Cranmer and Bucer, arguing that Cranmer's view of the eucharistic reception of Christ was (a) in harmony with that of the contemporary Swiss school, people like Hooper and Bullinger, and (b) out of line with Bucer's. He was more convincing on (a) than on (b), though he was wrong to think that by proving (a) he confirmed his thesis that Cranmer was a Zwinglian: Swiss doctrine had advanced well beyond memorialism by the 1540's. (Dix never noticed the Consensus Tigurinus, let alone saw its significance.) After this, Dr. C.C. Richardson (Zwingli and Cranmer on the Eucharist: Cranmer Dixit et Contradicixit, Evanston, 1949) maintained that it was nominalist philosophy which moved Cranmer and Zwingli to reject the real presence and corporal feeding on Christ, and Dr. Mascall would evidently like to agree (op. cit. pp. 117-21). But with Cranmer, at any rate, the motives prompting this rejection were not philosophical and rationalistic, but biblical and Christological: he was seeking to do justice to the view of the eucharist forced on him by the Bible and its patristic expositors, that it is a means whereby God makes present to our faith and savingly imparts to our souls (not a part of Christ, but) 'whole Christ', God, man, and Mediator, in all the power of His incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascension; so that it is a means of grace in a far richer sense than expositors of the real presence ever suspected. (James I. Packer, "Cranmer in Some Recent Writing," The Work of Thomas Cranmer. Vol. 2. Ed. G.E. Duffield. (Berkshire: Sutton Courtney Press, 1964). Pp. xl-xli.

Clearly then, even the Anglo-Catholic theologian Dom Gregory Dix thought that Cranmer was a Zwinglian. Of course this means that Dix would never try to say that Cranmer taught or believed in real presence in the elements themselves. James I. Packer thought Dix was wrong but affirmed that Cranmer did not teach real presence and that Zwinglianism itself did not teach a bare memorial in the 1540's. The Consensus Tigurinus is proof enough that the distinctions between the Calvinist view, the Cranmerian view, and the Zwinglian view were not insurmountable and were in actuality closer than Anglo-Catholics are willing to admit.

 

The Consensus Tigurinus

 

John Calvin (1549) translated by Henry Beveridge

 
Mutual Consent in Regard to the Sacraments Between the Ministers of the Church of Zurich and John Calvin, Minister of the Church of Geneva. Now published by those who framed it.


Article 1. The Whole Spiritual Government of the Church Leads us to Christ.


Seeing that Christ is the end of the law, and the knowledge of him comprehends in itself the whole sum of the gospel, there is no doubt that the object of the whole spiritual government of the Church is to lead us to Christ, as it is by him alone we come to God, who is the final end of a happy life. Whosoever deviates from this in the slightest degree, can never speak duly or appositely of any ordinances of God.

Article 2. A True Knowledge of the Sacraments from the Knowledge of Christ.

As the sacraments are appendages of the gospel, he only can discourse aptly and usefully of their nature, virtue, office, and benefit, who begins with Christ: and that not by adverting cursorily to the name of Christ, but by truly holding for what end he was given us by the Father, and what blessings he has conferred upon us.

Article 3. Nature of the Knowledge of Christ.

We must hold therefore that Christ, being the eternal Son of God, and of the same essence and glory with the Father, assumed our flesh, to communicate to us by right of adoption that which he possessed by nature, namely, to make us sons of God. This is done when ingrafted by faith into the body of Christ, and that by the agency of the Holy Spirit we are first counted righteous by a free imputation of righteousness, and then regenerated to a new life: whereby being formed again in the image of our heavenly Father, we renounce the old man.

Article 4. Christ a Priest and King.

Thus Christ, in his human nature, is to be considered as our priest, who expiated our sins by the one sacrifice of his death, put away all our transgressions by his obedience, provided a perfect righteousness for us, and now intercedes for us, that we may have access to God. He is to be considered as a repairer, who, by the agency of his Spirit, reforms whatever is vicious in us, that we may cease to live to the world and the flesh, and God himself may live in us. He is to be considered as a king, who enriches us with all kinds of blessings, governs and defends us by his power, provides us with spiritual weapons, delivers us from all harm, and rules and guides us by the sceptre of his mouth. And he is to be so considered, that he may raise us to himself, the true God, and to the Father, until the fulfilment of what is finally to take place, viz., God be all in all.

Article 5. How Christ Communicates Himself to Us.

Moreover, that Christ may thus exhibit himself to us and produce these effects in us, he must be made one with us, and we must be ingrafted into his body. He does not infuse his life into us unless he is our head, and from him the whole body, fitly joined together through every joint of supply, according to his working, maketh increase of the body in the proportion of each member.

Article 6. Spiritual Communion. Institution of the Sacraments.

The spiritual communion which we have with the Son of God takes place when he, dwelling in us by his Spirit, makes all who believe capable of all the blessings which reside in him. In order to testify this, both the preaching of the gospel was appointed, and the use of the sacraments committed to us, namely, the sacraments of holy Baptism and the holy Supper.

Article 7. The Ends of the Sacraments

The ends of the sacraments are to be marks and badges of Christian profession and fellowship or fraternity, to be incitements to gratitude and exercises of faith and a godly life; in short, to be contracts binding us to this. But among other ends the principal one is, that God may, by means of them, testify, represent, and seal his grace to us. For although they signify nothing else than is announced to us by the Word itself, yet it is a great matter, first, that there is submitted to our eye a kind of living images which make a deeper impression on the senses, by bringing the object in a manner directly before them, while they bring the death of Christ and all his benefits to our remembrance, that faith may be the better exercised; and, secondly, that what the mouth of God had announced is, as it were, confirmed and ratified by seals.

Article 8. Gratitude.

Now, seeing that these things which the Lord has given as testimonies and seals of his grace are true, he undoubtedly truly performs inwardly by his Spirit that which the sacraments figure to our eyes and other senses; in other words, we obtain possession of Christ as the fountain of all blessings, both in order that we may be reconciled to God by means of his death, be renewed by his Spirit to holiness of life, in short, obtain righteousness and salvation; and also in order that we may give thanks for the blessings which were once exhibited on the cross, and which we daily receive by faith.

Article 9. The Signs and the Things Signified Not Disjoined but Distinct.

Wherefore, though we distinguish, as we ought, between the signs and the things signified, yet we do not disjoin the reality from the signs, but acknowledge that all who in faith embrace the promises there offered receive Christ spiritually, with his spiritual gifts, while those who had long been made partakers of Christ continue and renew that communion.

Article 10. The Promise Principally to Be Looked To in the Sacraments.

And it is proper to look not to the bare signs, but rather to the promise thereto annexed. As far, therefore, as our faith in the promise there offered prevails, so far will that virtue and efficacy of which we speak display itself. Thus the substance of water, bread, and wine, by no means offers Christ to us, nor makes us capable of his spiritual gifts. The promise rather is to be looked to, whose office it is to lead us to Christ by the direct way of faith, faith which makes us partakers of Christ.

Article 11. We Are Not to Stand Gazing on the Elements.

This refutes the error of those who stand gazing on the elements, and attach their confidence of salvation to them; seeing that the sacraments separated from Christ are but empty shows, and a voice is distinctly heard throughout proclaiming that we must adhere to none but Christ alone, and seek the gift of salvation from none but him.

Article 12. The Sacraments Effect Nothing by Themselves.

Besides, if any good is conferred upon us by the sacraments, it is not owing to any proper virtue in them, even though in this you should include the promise by which they are distinguished. For it is God alone who acts by his Spirit. When he uses the instrumentality of the sacraments, he neither infuses his own virtue into them nor derogates in any respect from the effectual working of his Spirit, but, in adaptation to our weakness, uses them as helps; in such manner, however, that the whole power of acting remains with him alone.

Article 13. God Uses the Instrument, but All the Virtue Is His.

Wherefore, as Paul reminds us, that neither he that planteth nor he that watereth is any thing, but God alone that giveth the increase; so also it is to be said of the sacraments that they are nothing, because they will profit nothing, unless God in all things make them effectual. They are indeed instruments by which God acts efficaciously when he pleases, yet so that the whole work of our salvation must be ascribed to him alone.

Article 14. The Whole Accomplished by Christ.

We conclude, then, that it is Christ alone who in truth baptizes inwardly, who in the Supper makes us partakers of himself, who, in short, fulfils what the sacraments figure, and uses their aid in such manner that the whole effect resides in his Spirit.

Article 15. How the Sacraments Confirm.

Thus the sacraments are sometimes called seals, and are said to nourish, confirm, and advance faith, and yet the Spirit alone is properly the seal, and also the beginner and finisher of faith. For all these attributes of the sacraments sink down to a lower place, so that not even the smallest portion of our salvation is transferred to creatures or elements.

Article 16. All Who Partake of the Sacraments Do Not Partake of the Reality.

Besides, we carefully teach that God does not exert his power indiscriminately in all who receive the sacraments, but only in the elect. For as he enlightens unto faith none but those whom he hath foreordained to life, so by the secret agency of his Spirit he makes the elect receive what the sacraments offer.

Article 17. The Sacraments Do Not Confer Grace.

By this doctrine is overthrown that fiction of the sophists which teaches that the sacraments confer grace on all who do not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. For besides that in the sacraments nothing is received except by faith, we must also hold that the grace of God is by no means so annexed to them that whoso receives the sign also gains possession of the thing. For the signs are administered alike to reprobate and elect, but the reality reaches the latter only.

Article 18. The Gifts Offered to All, but Received by Believers Only.


It is true indeed that Christ with his gifts is offered to all in common, and that the unbelief of man not overthrowing the truth of God, the sacraments always retain their efficacy; but all are not capable of receiving Christ and his gifts. Wherefore nothing is changed on the part of God, but in regard to man each receives according to the measure of his faith.

Article 19. Believers Before, and Without the Use of the Sacraments, Communicate with Christ.

As the use of the sacraments will confer nothing more on unbelievers than if they had abstained from it, nay, is only destructive to them, so without their use believers receive the reality which is there figured. Thus the sins of Paul were washed away by baptism, though they had been previously washed away. So likewise baptism was the laver of regeneration to Cornelius, though he had already received the Holy Spirit. So in the Supper Christ communicates himself to us, though he had previously imparted himself, and perpetually remains in us. For seeing that each is enjoined to examine himself, it follows that faith is required of each before coming to the sacrament. Faith is not without Christ; but inasmuch as faith is confirmed and increased by the sacraments, the gifts of God are confirmed in us, and thus Christ in a manner grows in us and we in him.

Article 20. The Benefit Not Always Received in the Act of Communicating.

The advantage which we receive from the sacraments ought by no means to be restricted to the time at which they are administered to us, just as if the visible sign, at the moment when it is brought forward, brought the grace of God along with it. For those who were baptized when mere infants, God regenerates in childhood or adolescence, occasionally even in old age. Thus the utility of baptism is open to the whole period of life, because the promise contained in it is perpetually in force. And it may sometimes happen that the use of the holy Supper, which, from thoughtlessness or slowness of heart does little good at the time, afterward bears its fruit.

Article 21. No Local Presence Must Be Imagined.

We must guard particularly against the idea of any local presence. For while the signs are present in this world, are seen by the eyes and handled by the hands, Christ, regarded as man, must be sought nowhere else than in Heaven, and not otherwise than with the mind and eye of faith. Wherefore it is a perverse and impious superstition to inclose him under the elements of this world.

Article 22. Explanation of the Words "This Is My Body."

Those who insist that the formal words of the Supper, "This is my body; this is my blood," are to be taken in what they call the precisely literal sense, we repudiate as preposterous interpreters. For we hold it out of controversy that they are to be taken figuratively, the bread and wine receiving the name of that which they signify. Nor should it be thought a new or unwonted thing to transfer the name of things figured by metonymy [modern spelling: metonymy] to the sign, as similar modes of expression occur throughout the Scriptures, and we by so saying assert nothing but what is found in the most ancient and most approved writers of the Church.

Article 23. Of the Eating of the Body.

When it is said that Christ, by our eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, which are here figured, feeds our souls through faith by the agency of the Holy Spirit, we are not to understand it as if any mingling or transfusion of substance took place, but that we draw life from the flesh once offered in sacrifice and the blood shed in expiation.

Article 24. Transubstantiation and Other Follies.

In this way are refuted not only the fiction of the Papists concerning transubstantiation, but all the gross figments and futile quibbles which either derogate from his celestial glory or are in some degree repugnant to the reality of his human nature. For we deem it no less absurd to place Christ under the bread or couple him with the bread, than to transubstantiate the bread into his body.

Article 25. The Body of Christ Locally in Heaven.

And that no ambiguity may remain when we say that Christ is to be sought in Heaven, the expression implies and is understood by us to intimate distance of place. For though philosophically speaking there is no place above the skies, yet as the body of Christ, bearing the nature and mode of a human body, is finite and is contained in Heaven as its place, it is necessarily as distant from us in point of space as Heaven is from Earth.

Article 26. Christ Not to Be Adored in the Bread.

If it is not lawful to affix Christ in our imagination to the bread and the wine, much less is it lawful to worship him in the bread. For although the bread is held forth to us as a symbol and pledge of the communion which we have with Christ, yet as it is a sign and not the thing itself, and has not the thing either included in it or fixed to it, those who turn their minds towards it, with the view of worshipping Christ, make an idol of it.

Addendum:  See also, Wikipedia, Consensus Tigurinus.  Note that the document was published in 1549, well within Archbishop Cranmer's time frame.  Cranmer would have been aware of it and Wikipedia says it was received well in England.


See also,  Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII:  Modern Chrisitanity:  The Swiss Reformation, § 132. The Eucharistic Controversies. Calvin and Westphal. Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

This version of the Consensus of Tigurinus was originally posted at the Westminster Seminary, California website.  It is now posted at the Heidelblog:  Consensus of Tigurinus

Should Women Be Ordained to Ministry? Deacons or Otherwise? Part 3

 

 

 

Should Women Be Ordained to Ministry? Deacons or Otherwise? Part 3

 

As the twentieth century has seen a great increase in the control that national governments exercise over their citizens, so too with ecclesiastical organizations there is a trend toward centralization, bureaucracy, and an indifference toward inalienable rights.  Well publicized gatherings of Protestant prelates parade in robes, and the press reports the colorful pageantry.  Impressive imitation of popery!  And the same eventual results are to be expected.

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to His Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.  . . . [WCF 20:2 WCS].

The changing majorities of a Council or General Assembly which push a conjectural translation of the Bible one year and another year issue Sunday School lessons whose conjectures are still worse, may boast that their theology is not static but dynamic.  A different doctrine every decade—while the orthodox fuddy-duddies keep on believing the same thing all the time!

But what moral chaos there is, when the law of God is abandoned for the latest style of unbelief.  It used to be [Albrecht] Ritschl’s value judgments; now it is paradox; next it will be—who can guess?

The law of God is stable because God is unchangeable.  Those who believe God do not need to change their moral principles with the passing years.  Nor will they change their worship, push the Bible to one side, put an altar in the center, pray to the saints and the Virgin, nor . . . engage a troupe of ballet dancers to fill an empty pulpit.

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  Essays on Ethics and Politics.  John Robbins, ed.  (Jefferson:  Trinity Foundation, 1992).  Pp. 21-22.

 

I make the above point because it seems that the larger a denomination becomes, the more centralized its ecclesiastical polity becomes.  I am currently attending a new church plant in Lexington, South Carolina.  It is already becoming apparent that the pastor and the elders do not want any sort of dissent as that would cause a problem with “the peace, purity, and prosperity of this congregation as long as” I am “a member of it.”  I am referring to the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church as a denomination.  The general synod in 1969 made the decision to allow the ordination of women as deacons; however, it was determined that each session or church within the denomination could decide whether or not to ordain women to the church office of the deaconate or deacon.  

This is a strong indication that there are liberals within the denomination who wish to have women ordained to every church office.  [See:  “Women in the Life of the Church: A Position Paper Approved by the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church:   June 2005”.]  I was shocked to see that one of the authors and signatories on this document was Rev. William B. Evans.  Evans recently announced that he was leaving the ARPC and joining the PCUSA.  His reason is detailed in a blog article he posted here:  A Change in Ecclesial Affiliation for the Ecclesial Calvinist!  Obviously, Mr. Evans is one of the liberals whom I mentioned.  He argues in 2005 that the reason for decline in the ARPC is holding true to the fundamentals.  In order for the denomination to grow, it must accommodate to the times and the culture:

By 2010 or so, however, I sensed that the ARP Church had lost its sense of identity and direction.  When I served as Moderator of the ARP General Synod in 2005 I warned the body that a dire situation awaited if the church did not recover a coherent identity and sense of mission.  Serving on the subsequent General Synod Vision and Strategic Planning Committees reinforced the sense that we were wandering in the weeds and on the edge of precipitous decline.  As a church historian I knew the story well—that ARP identity had historically been predicated on certain praxis distinctives (exclusive psalmody, non-instrumental worship, strict Sabbatarianism, and closed communion), and that by the mid-20th century all of that had dissolved and the church was searching for a new identity.  From 2004 until 2012 I had written/edited the ARP Adult Quarterly Sunday-school curriculum, but beginning in 2012 I began to pull back from my denominational involvements to concentrate on scholarly writing and research.

During this time, I also noticed that the ARPC was becoming more rigidly conservative (largely because of the decline of Erskine Theological Seminary and the rising influence of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC) even as I was growing older and a bit more flexible theologically.  A clarifying moment occurred in the last few years when I chaired a Synod committee to study the issue of women serving in the diaconate in the ARPC.  The Committee presented a sensible report noting that the current policy of allowing women in the ARPC to serve as deacons has worked well for decades, that Scripture can reasonably be read either way, and that no one’s conscience is bound by the current policy.  The floor debate on the report was disheartening, and it was evident that a large minority of the court wanted to do away with women on the diaconate completely.  Particularly clarifying for me was an obviously premeditated speech by a younger minister asserting that those in favor of women in the diaconate were capitulating to the feminist and transgender agenda!  No one called him to task, and I realized at that point that the Overton window had shifted to such a point that I was in the wrong church!

It is here that Evans’s theological compromise is revealed openly.  He straightforwardly admits that he has become “more flexible” with age.  Ironically, his views seem to be inflexible when it comes to acknowledging the plain teaching of Scripture, which he claims can be “read either way.”  I am speculating that the sections in the position paper of 2005 dealing with arguments from the other side were all written by Evans because he agrees with them.  The paper quotes Evans as saying:

While traditionalists have often been tolerant of progressive thinking, they themselves are often not tolerated once women’s ordination is instantiated in a denomination.  That has been the trend in the Church of Scotland, the PCUSA and elsewhere.  The pattern here is for conservatives to be grandfathered for a time, but sooner or later ordination requirements are rewritten to include support for women’s ordination.  This is due primarily, not to liberal meanspiritedness, but to the logic of Reformed polity.  The offices of minister and elder are the foundation of the polity, and everybody has to own the polity, to accept the ground rules of the game.   Reformed churches cannot tolerate the presence of those who would challenge, even implicitly, the legitimacy of a large group of officeholders.  (ARPC Position Paper, p. 4).

Ironically, Evans laments the fact that Ligonier Ministries has had a profound effect on the denomination because many of the ministers are coming from Reformed Theological Seminary, Charlotte, North Carolina instead of Erskine Theological Seminary in Due West, South Carolina or the campus in Columbia, South Carolina.

There are other issues with the denomination, including other liberal professors at Eskine University and Erskine Theological Seminary.  The church plants that I have observed in the greater Columbia, South Carolina area have mostly followed the pragmatic approach of the church growth movement rather than the biblical mandate to make disciples.  In short, the Westminster Standards are a mere afterthought, an option.  No need to instruct the congregation in the doctrines of the Bible as summarized by the Westminster Standards.

The late Dr. Gordon H. Clark brought up another issue in regards to the ordination of a young man to the ministry:

In addition to these elements of liberty, which particularly concern us in our individual lives, Christian liberty includes liberty of conscience in the face of tyrannical ecclesiastical organizations.  Some years ago a young man presented himself to a Presbytery for ordination.  As he was known to believe that the boards and agencies of that church were infiltrated with modernism, he was asked if he would support the boards regardless of what they did.  When the young man declined to make any such blind promise, the Presbytery refused to ordain him.  [Clark, p. 21]

The church plant that I am attending in Lexington, South Carolina has a new members class.  I am facing a similar decision.  The last vow of the seven vows requires me to promise “loving obedience” and to submit myself “to the government and discipline of this church, promising to seek the peace, purity, and prosperity of this congregation as long as” I am “a member of it.”  But can I do that?  The appointed pastor of the church plant is Jeff Tell.  He is apparently following the accommodation tactics of church growth pragmatism and the leftist theology of the late Tim Keller among others, including James K.A. Smith.

Moreover, the question of the ordination of women as deacons seems to have an obvious answer when considering that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief, doctrine, theology, ethics, morality, worship, and practice.  (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 1 Peter 1:24-25; 2 Peter 1:19-21).  As I mentioned already in the first post, the most plain and perspicuous Scriptures against the ordination of women should apply first.  Without going into extensive and detailed exegesis of the passages, I will now show that women should not be ordained to any church office whatsoever, as ordination in the church is restricted to men only.

First, the final authority must be the Bible, not church synods.  When the doctrinal standards of the Bible and the Westminster Confession of Faith are minimized due to either cultural relativism or ecclesiastical tyranny, it becomes necessary for the laity to stand against such accommodation to culture.  The Bible makes it very clear that the deaconate is restricted to men only, just as the offices of teaching and ruling elders are restricted to men only:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, . . . (1 Timothy 3:2 KJV).

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, . . . (1 Timothy 3:12 KJV)

I should point out that the Bible nowhere makes a distinction between ruling elders, who handle the administration of the church, and teaching elders who handle the preaching of the word and the administration of the two gospel sacraments.  If elders do not teach or preach, following the logic of the liberals, it would seem that the door is wide open for women to become ruling elders as well as deacons.  If any object that the deacons are only to serve tables and not to handle the preaching of the word, it should be pointed out that the deacons in the book of Acts were handpicked by the apostles.  (Acts  6:1-8).  Furthermore, the most prominent deacon mentioned in the pericope is Stephen.  He is said to perform miracles:

And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. (Acts 6:8 KJV)

In other words, the office of deacon is more than just visiting widows, doing pastoral visits, or serving communion.  Even then, women should not be serving communion at the Lord’s table.  None of the men chosen by the apostles were women:

And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: (Acts 6:5 KJV)

The clincher for this argument is that Stephen was stoned after he preached a sermon to the Jews who disagreed with the Gospel message of the apostles:

Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. 10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. 11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God. 12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, 13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: 14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. 15 And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel. (Acts 6:9-15 KJV)

After Stephen preached the council condemned him to death by stoning.  (Acts 7:1-8:1).  Saul was there and participated in the council and the stoning of Stephen.  Does this sound like an office for women?  I think not.

As for the other passages of Scripture, most of the women mentioned are spoken of as being in the company of their husbands.  Priscilla and Aquila are emphasized by Pentecostals as a husband and wife team.  (Acts 18:2). But were they?  Pentecostals like to point out that Priscilla is mentioned first in the text.  (Acts 18:18; Romans 16:3).  But in the other occurrences, Aquila is mentioned first.  (Acts 18:2, 26; 1 Corinthians 16:19).  The Pentecostal argument that seems strongest is also weak:

And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. (Acts 18:26 KJV)

This is a one-time occurrence in the Bible.  As one commentator once said, a doctrine that is mentioned only once in the Bible and is contradicted by other verses is probably a weak doctrine.  Of course, how many times does God need to say something for it to be true?

Here ends this post.  In part 4 I will discuss the biblical evidence for Junia being among the apostles.  Also, I will discuss the four prophesying daughters of Philip.

Here are the links to Part 1 and Part 2 of this blog series.

Should Women Be Ordained to Ministry? Deacons or Otherwise? Part 2

 

“Calvinistic ethics depends on revelation.  The distinction between right and wrong is not identified by an empirical discovery of natural law, as with Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, nor by the logical formalism of Kant, and certainly not by utilitarianism’s impossible calculation of the greatest good for the greatest number, but by God’s revelation of the Ten Commandments.  This revelation came first in God’s act of creating man in his own image so that certain basic moral principles were implanted in his heart, later to be vitiated by sin; second, there were some special instructions given to Adam and Noah, which no doubt overlapped and expanded the innate endowment; third, the more comprehensive revelation to Moses; plus, fourth, the various subsidiary precepts in the remainder of the Bible.” 

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  Essays on Ethics and Politics.  John Robbins, ed.  (Jefferson:  Trinity Foundation, 1992)  Pp. 3-4.

 

 

Should Women Be Ordained to Ministry?  Deacons or Otherwise?  Part 2

 

In this post I will discuss the creation of humanity, or the more accurate term, mankind.  The revisionists are continually trying to rewrite the common English language to reflect their ideological agenda.  Recently, there was a story where a feminist congress woman said that we cannot use the term manufacture because the word has “man” in it.  The ridiculousness of the progressive Marxist movement is out of hand, and it has infiltrated the Evangelical churches through an unbiblical ideology of egalitarianism in the Christian family. 

The first mention of the creation of mankind is in Genesis chapter 1.  However, in chapter 2 of Genesis we have a further particularization of how God created mankind.  In chapter 1 we are told that God created them male and female.  Notice that in chapter 1 the reference to humanity is singular and then plural: 

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Gen. 1:26-27 KJV)

If you doubt that the King James translation is accurate in giving the singular and plural forms of the Hebrew words, you can consult Biblehub.com to check the Biblical Hebrew Interlinear:  Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 1:27.

In chapter one we have two different words that convey God’s creation.  In Genesis 1:1 the word used for God’s creating the heavens and the earth is the Hebrew word “bara”.  This word in verse 1 refers to creation by divine fiat or ex nihilo, out of nothing.  But in Genesis 1:26 the word used for God’s act of creating is the word “asa”, which means to fashion or work.  In other words, mankind is not created out of nothing as was the universe in verse 1, but God creates man and woman out of pre-existing materials that He had already created ex nihilo or by divine fiat.  We also know this from the parallel account of creation in Genesis 2:7, 21-23.  It should be noted, on the other hand, that in Genesis 1:27 the word “bara” is used, not “asa”.  This is because only man of all the animals created is created in God’s image.  Man alone of the animals is the rational and intellectual image of God.  (John 1:1, 9; Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7).

However, in Genesis 1:27 we have a play on words.  Whereas verse 26 uses the word “asa” to make mankind, a qal imperfect cohortative, to show what He is planning to do, the verse says also that God will “make” man (singular) after “our” (plural) image.  Note also that the word for God in Genesis 1:27 is Elohim, the majestic plurality.  Here the verse is clearly referring to mankind as a whole.

Moreover, in chapter 2 we learn that God creates the first man as one person, Adam.  Next, God sees that Adam of all the animals is alone and has no mate or helper.  So out of Adam’s rib God creates Eve, the mother of all humanity.  This is important because the apostle Paul elaborates on this information.   Adam was formed first; then, God formed Eve from Adam’s rib, and Adam called her woman because she was taken out of the man.  (1 Timothy 2:13; 1 Corinthians 11:8; Genesis 2:23).  Liberals will contend that Adam and Eve are not historical persons because the Genesis creation account in chapter 1 and 2 are disparate accounts, not parallel accounts of the same historical events.  The critics also contend that the Hebrew word is not the name of a man but is instead a generic term for mankind as a whole.  Thus, they see chapter 2 as an etiological myth to explain the difference between male and female human beings. 

In contradiction to this, the Bible assigns a name to the woman.  Her name is Eve, the mother of all the living.  (Genesis 3:20).  We can then see that Adam is not just a generic term but the name of the first Adam.  (Genesis 3:9).  This is confirmed in the New Testament as well.  (Romans 5:12-14).  In fact, Adam is called the Son of God, the first man.  (Luke 3:38).  It is no mistake that the Reformed theologians refer to Adam as the federal head of the human race, not Eve.

Modern feminist theologians have tried to re-imagine God as a female.  However, the use of masculine pronouns in reference to God throughout the Old Testament flies in the face of this innovation.

In 1995 during my field training class required to obtain the master of divinity degree from Asbury Theological seminary, I opted to do my field experience by doing one unit of clinical pastor education through Hospice of the Bluegrass in Lexington, Kentucky.  There is another major seminary in the Lexington area which is associated with the Disciples of Christ.  The Disciples of Christ was originally a product of the Second Great Awakening.  The Cane Ridge revivals just north of Lexington produced growth in several denominations in the area, including the Methodists, the Presbyterians and the Baptists.  In order to preserve the fruits of the revival, Charles Finney and others decided to stop emphasizing doctrinal distinctives and reject formal creeds and confessions of faith.  Thus, the saying was that there is no creed but Christ.  Unfortunately, this position has led to the extreme liberalism of the Disciples of Christ as a mainline denomination.

Of the students in the class there was a retired mainline Presbyterian minister who was a member of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, another liberal denomination.  There was a female student from Lexington Theological Seminary, which is the Disciples of Christ school.  And, there was a male student from the Free Methodist Church who had recently graduated from Asbury with the M. Div. degree.  The supervisor of the class was an intern herself.  She was a nun with the Roman Catholic Church.  At the beginning she told us that she would be evaluating us as students, and, that we would be evaluating her to determine if she would become a supervisor in the CPE program.

At the time, I was still a Pentecostal and had no objections to the ordination of women.  I stupidly thought that this would deflect any criticism by the two liberals and the Roman Catholic nun.  I misread the Free Methodist, who was doing another unit of CPE because he was employed by Hospice of the Bluegrass.  I thought the Free Methodist would be immune to any re-imaging of God as a female.  I was wrong.  I was familiar with the re-imaging movement by feminists because at that point in time it was being openly promoted and even affirmed by some progressive Evangelicals.

The fireworks started on day one because the Roman Catholic nun, an elderly lady, insisted that we pray together as a group.  What I did not know is that apparently there was interaction already taking place before I arrived in the class.  When I prayed, I ended my part of the prayer with a traditional ending to most impromptu Pentecostal prayers.  The ending goes something like this: “Father God, thank You for hearing our prayers and petitions.  I thank You and praised you in the wonderful name above all names, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.” 

The next time we met I was immediately called out and challenged by the supervisor, Jean.  This was the beginning of many challenges I had to face during that class, which met at the offices of Hospice of the Bluegrass.  However, early on I decided that I would never compromise my faith to appease papists and theological liberals or even mainline Free Methodists.  The very first thing that happened on the second meeting was that Jean, the Catholic nun, objected to my prayer.   I was confused at first because I did not see that there was anything controversial about it.  Jean said that I should not pray to God as my Father.  Now this really piqued my interest because I had been taught to pray the model prayer since about first grade through the fourth grade in elementary school in Weaver, Alabama.  “Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name . . .”  (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2).

When I asked why not I was informed that the married female student from Lexington Theological Seminary had been sexually molested as a child by her biological father.  So, my first dilemma is whether to cave to the liberals and the papist, all of whom said that they had no problem praying to God as “mother.”  I decided then and there that there would be no compromise and that no one had the right to tell me what to believe.  The Bible is the final authority for me, and it has never changed.  Unfortunately, there are Pentecostals and Charismatics today who no longer believe that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  Their Pentecostal experiences trump and override the Bible.

So began a theological debate in which I was put on the defensive by the other three students and the papist nun.  Asked why I refused to compromise, I explained that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice because it is the inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God.  I explained that the Bible determines what I believe and not what any theologian has to say on such matters.  I also explained that Jesus was a male and that He taught us to pray to our Father in heaven, which, I pointed out, even the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church calls for.  At this point, the papist nun, Jean, stopped me in my statement and informed me that her church did not pray to God the Father.   I argued with her about it and said that I happen to know enough about the Roman Catholic Church to know that whatever her parish was doing was not in line with the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.  She persisted in saying that it was not true, despite the fact that she was obviously equivocating.  She played the victim card, insisting that I should not pray to God as Father.  To which I responded that the molestation of the female student was not my problem and that I would not compromise simply because her biological father had molested her and that she had a problem with imagining God as her Father.

Jean brought up a couple of biblical metaphors where God is said to care for us as a mother nurses her baby.  You can see a few examples of these verses here:  Female Images of God in the Bible.  Apparently, there is a movement within the Roman Catholic Church to push for the ordination of women as priests.  As I said before, at the time I did not object to the ordination of women because of my affiliation with the Assemblies of God.  But the line they wanted me to cross was praying to God by the title of “Mother God.”  I informed the nun that Pentecostals do not pray to Mary as the mother of God.  But she insisted that this was praying not to Mary but to God as the Mother.  I was taken aback to be honest.  The next thing she brought up after I insisted that Jesus was a male and the Son of God was that in the book of Proverbs Jesus is personified as a female, Sophia.  After some study, I did find out that the Septuagint translation of the book of Proverbs does indeed use the Greek word Sophia for the word “wisdom”.  However, I informed her that the Protestant churches do not view the Septuagint as an inspired translation.  The Hebrew word is not Sophia.  In short, there is no reference to any woman named Sophia in the book of Proverbs.  Rather than go into a long detour on the matter, I refer you to the article from “Got Questions?” here:  “Does the Bible teach that Sophia is the goddess of wisdom?”

After I insisted that I would not be changing the way that I prayed, Jean suggested that I was being insensitive to the female who had been molested.  My response was clear and unambiguous.  I would not pray to God as mother because the title that Jesus Himself commanded us to use was God the Father.  Jesus prayed to God as Father many times in the Bible, even saying that He and His Father were one.  (John 10:30, 12:45, 14:7, 14:9, et. al.).  The entire class that session turned into a theological debate.  I held my ground.  At the end, Jean asked me not to pray that way.  To which I responded that I would not. So, she asked me what solution I could offer.  I offered that we should not pray together at all.  This was something of a shocker to me because I had expected the fake Evangelical Free Methodist to back me up.  Instead, he sided with the liberals.  Honestly, I was not comfortable praying with liberals and papists anyway because I did not view them as born again Christians.

In a later attack, they asked me how I felt about homosexuals.  I again stood my ground and said that it was an abomination because the Bible said so.  Then, they played the victim card again.  Turns out that one of the social workers at the hospice was a gay man whose name now escapes me.  Before that session I had gotten along fine with that social worker.  I noticed later that his countenance had changed toward me.  I did not compromise.  I treated him as I would anyone else, not withstanding my objection to the sin of homosexuality.

During the course, I was attacked over and over again and at one point I openly asked Jean if she was planning to fail me for the class because of my commitments to the Bible as my authority.  She refused to answer, implying to me at the time that she was planning to write a bad review.  So, that was a mistake on her part.  I was so incensed by even the thought of my being discriminated against because of my Evangelical faith that I wrote a scathing review of Jean’s handling of the situation.  I said pretty much what I said above and charged her with constantly attacking my faith.  In short, the supposedly tolerant ones were intolerant of my Evangelical faith and my right to the freedom of religion.  No one has the right to tell anyone else what their religious beliefs should be.  (Acts 5:29).

On the final day of the class, we all read our reviews.  The other students all went first.  Jean read her review of me, in which I was surprised to learn that she had not rejected me from passing the evaluation.  I read my review last.  It was a scathing review, as I said before.  I stand by that review because I felt attacked by all four of the others during the entire class.  After I read the review, I was reminded by the other students that Jean needed a good review from all four of us in order to pass her evaluation to become a CPE supervisor.  I told them that I could not lie about what I truthfully thought about her treatment of me in the class.  I got up and left first.

Jesus promised us that when we were called before councils and authorities that God would give us the words to say.  (Luke 12:11-12).  Jesus kept that promise. 

In my next post, I will address several passages of Scripture used by the Pentecostals to justify the ordination of women.  Ironically, most of these passages are same passages used by the liberals, progressives and feminists to justify the ordination of women to church offices.

 

You can read the previous post of this series here:  Should Women Be Ordained to Ministry? Part 1.